Testing audiophile claims and myths

[bigshot]

Why is it that every time I come here there’s someone arguing that their invisible friend exists?

The new one is reality doesn't exist.

 

[colonelkernel8]

Thank you for the link - it may be helpful.

Unfortunately. this test, although perfectly valid, does NOT reflect reality - not in real life.

That's why I said I want to make it better. I did figure it out how, now I will have to learn something I never needed to do up to this date : cut both samples to exactly the same length, with exactly the same beginning and end, and then perform null test.

I am FAR more interested in analog record playback than I will ever be in digital audio; I have to figure out how to change PCM ( grrr - unfortunately, DSD can not be processed ...) recordings from test records into some meaningful graphs. The biggest problem are ticks an pops, inevitable even in new records. As most measurements of phono equipment are linear ( without the RIAA filter required ), this is even more exaggerated in digital recordings of output from analog test records. There is a reason why the latest software plus proprietary test records cost so much... because the bulk of the work has been to determine best algorithms how to get rid of the ticks and pops while having no or minimal influence on the graph produced. I am interested in working with old non plus ultra test records from the golden age of analog, long out of print and today next to unobtainium, at any cost - simply because they were and continue to remain the best.

This test does reflect reality. It is a measurement of reality. You're delusional to the point of no longer mattering.

Do we need a new forum titled: "Sound Pseudoscience" where cranks like analogsurvivor can go and live and talk about junk like CD mats and mass-dampened cables.

 

[colonelkernel8]

I should have be more exact in my post - what is actually meant to showcase the benefits of CDmat is RECORDING LIVE MUSIC - directly to CD-R or CD-RW disc.

Here, most of the error correction measures are reduced to the bare minimum - of course, the machine can not buffer in its memory something that has not even happened yet, etc... There is no computer software that can measure data errors in this case - or, at least, not something that has been available and affordable say 15 years ago.

Optical reading/recording is nowhere as "perfect" as some would like lead you to believe. It was a revelation to have find the last few gold CD-Rs from BASF on the shelf in a mall I used to briefly work at - less than 10 pcs, used up in 2 or maybe 3 recording sessions. Then, searching for yet more gold CD-Rs, it turned out that they were, about a decade ago, a dissapearing breed - cost for so called archival media has simply been to much for normal users. There was no denying gold CDs sound better than normal variety - but becoming unavailable - FAST. I have been searching for any "replacement" - archival or anything that might offer similar quality and longeivity. And found I did... - luckily, promo sale of then brand new CD-Rs were also compatible with Philips/Marantz CD-R ( pro ) recorders - which are otherwise quite picky beasts when it comes to media. That hunch/gamble paid off greatly - but it could have also backfired badly; one does not, at least not usually, buy at unseen/unheard/untested - 1000 CD-Rs in a single batch ( 10 boxes with 100 CD-Rs each ). These offered an unmistakable improvement in the sound quality obtainable from CD-R/RW recorders.

As with everything that is overachiever ( offers way too much vs asking price ), this product has been rather quickly terminated - but is, at least to my knowledge, the best CD-R, exceeding even gold variety. The claim was for archival use ( > 100 years ), so far I could not find any problems with by now over a decade old discs - already recorded or still blank.

And then came the CD mat. Again, offering improvement in CD-R/RW recording. Both the mentioned disks and mat have also been used for CD-R burning by computer - with the reservation no spinning above about 4x normal playback of the burner drive takes place - ever.

But, usually, I burn my CD-Rs with SLOWER speed than 1x - Yamaha's AMQR (Audio Master Quality Recording) https://usa.yamaha.com/files/download/brochure/1/320331/CDR-HD1300_U_bro.pdf .
Compared to normal CD-R burning , which allows 80 minute of audio on 700MB disk, AMQR only allows slightly above 63 minutes of audio. Burning 63 minutes of audio takes at "1x" speed slightly below 90 min - IIRC. It has been a while since I last burned a CD-R ...

It has been first available in computer burners - CRW-F1, both in-built and standalone USB version (which has quite good sounding analog RCA out ! ). To this day, these drives will sparkle bidding wars on ebay... particularly the NOS samples.
Properly done AMQR recorded disc will outplay any commercially available CD, even if it has been derived from it (preferably ripped and data verified ) - couple that to both ripping and recording done using CD mat, and it is sure to put smile on your face and raised eyebrows on anyone who has not heard CD in this quality before.

As you can see, standard CD DOES have problems with jitter - at its very source, the disc itself. And that could be far worse a problem than the jitter in the DACs. I know most listen today to RBCD from the CDs ripped to hard drive, that CD players are dying bred, etc.

But the need for stabilization of optical discs in SACD players is still very much there - unless you are willing to fiddle with SACD ripping, which most definitely WILL turn you into an - ebay hawk. The number of old(er) models of Sony Playstation ( before they ripped almost everything supporting SACD out... ) that are indispensable for (unofficial, of course ) ripping of SACDs at home level, available for sale, is ever dwindling - which drives the cost of remaining NOS units ever higher.

What kind of fool would record direct to disc? If the recorded data is in the digital domain, this serves NO purpose. It can be buffered in memory and the burned to the disc at its leisure with tons of error checks along the way. Recording directly to disc is the definition of audiophool nonsense.

"There was no denying gold CDs sound better than normal variety." The very definition of bull.

"These offered an unmistakable improvement in the sound quality obtainable from CD-R/RW recorders." bull.

"And then came the CD mat. Again, offering improvement in CD-R/RW recording." bull.

"Properly done AMQR recorded disc will outplay any commercially available CD." bull.

"and it is sure to put smile on your face and raised eyebrows on anyone who has not heard CD in this quality before." Purely subjective bull.

"As you can see, standard CD DOES have problems with jitter." bull.

"But the need for stabilization of optical discs in SACD players is still very much there." bull.

"unless you are willing to fiddle with SACD ripping, which most definitely WILL turn you into an - ebay hawk." I found a Pioneer Blu-Ray/SACD player on eBay for $50 and I can run a script on it that lets me rip the SACDs. It's really, really easy and cheap. I've ripped some symphonic music using it that I had on the mostly useless DSD format. But I've already ripped my last SACD, so I'll tell you what, if you want my Pioneer Blu-Ray/SACD player, I'll sell it to you for $1000. How about that!

It seems you can't help but make ridiculous assertions without evidence, so I will employ Hitchen's razor and suggest everything stated thus far can simply be discarded.

 

[colonelkernel8]

Oops.... - somebody talking theory, without ever recording music ( and by that, I mean REAL music - musicians/room/microphones/some kind of storage ) in real life.

Nope, assuming optical disc playback to be perfect is NOT how it is in real life. Be nice and re-check the size of the CD pits - and then put any of your beloved CDs with hole on any of your fingers that fit into that hole. Flick the rim of the CD with the fingernail of the other arm - close to your ear. You WILL hear the CD vibrating.... - with amplitude exceeding the pit size. Forcing the laser serve to perpetually search for the focus.

Now repeat the same test - this time with the paper that comes in all/any CD-R media on top of the CD-R stack. You WILL hear much less of the CD resonance, both in amplitude and in duration - it is over almost instantly and does not ring like CD normally does. That paper of course can not compare to the effect of the mat - where probably the best is graphite, but so thin graphite disk is brittle to the max and most likely anything but durable. Next best thing - carbon fibre mat. While probably not as good as graphite, with reasonable care it will last in normal 1x speed transports such as CD and DVD player for a lifetime.

Of course, no one is flicking the rim of the CD while playing back - at least not with the magnitude of fingernail. Then again, re-check the size ( depth... ) of the information pits of the CD ... - and then, DVD. It is likely DVD benefits because of this even more than CD. Anything that rotates is bound to vibrate to some extent - no such thing as perfect bearings with zero free play and noise.

CD mat has another advantage - optical. CD-R ( and CD ) media is NOT entirely non permeable for light - just check some different samples looking trough them to a light bulb. Some are at least semi-transparent - and likely to be more or less so, depending on any label printing or graphics - meaning optical conditions are NOT uniform, but are changing according to whatever is on the label. Placing a black carbon fibre mat on top of the label will instantly make this translucence problem ( again, a possible source of forcing laser servo into constant focus correction ) obsolete. For each and every CD in your collection.

Unless you have "turntable type" CD transport - then no mat is required.

Oops, somebody spewing bull pseudoscience, without ever getting a degree in engineering or even having a remote understanding of physics (or even a provable connection to reality).

Something both you and Keith fail to understand is that disc read errors manifest as clicks and pops, not as frequency domain amplitude shifts or flowery, abstract concepts such as "clarity" or "smearing". Time domain shifts from jitter in recording to disc are the definition of immaterial. First, the data is pushed into essentially a shift register 16 bits at a time before the DAC is able to convert it, so minor bit-to-bit jitter literally doesn't matter as the data is being reclocked at 44.1 kHz at output.

I'll say it again, I'll bet every penny I make for the rest of my life that a CD in a functioning CD player will output the same data with or without the mat.

 

[bigshot]

I think it’s not something he can help. Engaging with him just makes it worse. He’s just talking to himself anyway. He doesn’t hear anything you say, except as an excuse to launch into another of his routines. No need to reply to him.

The other one is just hungry for attention. Again, not engaging directly is the best. Don’t quote. If you reply, address the rest of the group, not them directly.

 

[colonelkernel8]

I think it’s not something he can help. Engaging with him just makes it worse. He’s just talking to himself anyway. He doesn’t hear anything you say, except as an excuse to launch into another of his routines. No need to reply to him.

The other one is just hungry for attention. Again, not engaging directly is the best. Don’t quote. If you reply, address the rest of the group, not them directly.

I know it. It's the same kind of repulsion and anger I get when arguing with people who believe the Earth is flat or that vaccinations are bad. I can't help myself at times.

 

[bigshot]

I don't think it's the same kind of thing. This isn't just crackpot opinions. I think this is behavior patterns they just can't help. And people on the internet aren't going to be able to help them change for the better, so there's no use trying.

 

[colonelkernel8]

I don't think it's the same kind of thing. This isn't just crackpot opinions. I think this is behavior patterns they just can't help. And people on the internet aren't going to be able to help them change for the better, so there's no use trying.

I think you'll find that there is certainly a pathology to people who carry crackpot opinions, and it's similar to our friend here.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Lol. When they were conversing with each other earlier today i was thinking it was like listening to a 9/11 truther and a flat-earther talking about Bigfoot.

 

[old tech]

Interesting article published by the AES. By the late 1970s, all the major producers of direct to disc recordings (eg Decca, Telarc) had agreed that digital recordings were an improvement over analog tape and a significant improvement over direct to disc. Probably explains why direct to disc recordings died out by the time CDs were introduced to the market place.

http://www.aes.org/aeshc/pdf/fine_dawn-of-digital.pdf

 

[bigshot]

I remember reading an article in one of the hifi magazines at the time by Lincoln Mayorga and Doug Sax admitting that their previous article with the infamous stair step diagram was wrong. They opened up a CD line shortly after. They master their CDs from the tape backups they ran during the original direct to disc sessions. They only use needle drop masters when no tape master exists. They completely backtracked. The records sound great though.

 

[analogsurviver]

Interesting article published by the AES. By the late 1970s, all the major producers of direct to disc recordings (eg Decca, Telarc) had agreed that digital recordings were an improvement over analog tape and a significant improvement over direct to disc. Probably explains why direct to disc recordings died out by the time CDs were introduced to the market place.

http://www.aes.org/aeshc/pdf/fine_dawn-of-digital.pdf

Great link and few of inside stories I have not been familiar with.

I am not sure Decca ever did any direct to disk recording in "modern age" - only prior to introduction of analog magnetic tape.

Telarc's first recording has been a direct to disk - Cleveland orchestra IIRC .
https://www.discogs.com/Lorin-MaazelCleveland-Orchestra-Direct-From-Cleveland/release/4552685

Both firms were among the first adopters of the digital recording - and competitors, rather fierce I might add. Decca had its own digital recorder, Telarc went with the Soundstream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundstream device.

One of the best DECCA digital recordings - if not THE best - is
https://www.discogs.com/Vienna-Phil...eujahrskonzert-In-Wien-Concert-/master/381877
And to this day, the original LP ( I will check the exact pressing I own - it has been the first pressing possible to buy in neighbouring Italy, most likely the first UK pressing ) - if played back on a superb record player - eclipses any of the DECCA digital releases I had the privilege to hear. Particularly listen to both polka and encore of the "Auf der Jagd" - where improvements in both dynamic range and bass extension over analog tape are clearly audible. You have to use a cartridge that can play back at least 90um amplitude at 300 Hz to do this recording justice - this rules out most of the MC cartridges on the market. DECCA never did any modern day direct to disk recording, let alone remote direct to disk recording ( lathe has some 300 kg, has to be in place at least a day before, etc - $$$$ ) - but that concert could have been even better captured in direct to disk way; only, it would not have been a double, but quadruple LP album. Of course, they chose not to shoot themselves in the foot - the aim of this recording has been to usher and promote the dawn of digital.

Both DECCA and Telarc choose the easy way out; admittedly, the demands and rigors of direct to disk recordings exceeds the capabilities of most musicians - much more so today then back in around 1980, when "digital photoshop" has not been even remotely as developed, widespread and entrenched as it is today. Today, any musician mistake is later in digital post production erased/repaired/whateveryouwannacallit. There is NO such "safety net" in direct to disk recording - everything gets recorded exactly as happened, no after the fact corrections are possible. And here lies the reason why both companies went digital - NOT the sound quality per se.

Soundstream recordings, in particular, have a rather nasty high frequency end - although improved upon the prototype ( see link above), it was still not enough for those listening to either live or analog recorded and reproduced music. Ii is true that Telarc produced great recordings as far as bass is concerned ( if you write a triangle concerto, Telarc will turn it into bass drum concerto ...- my remark back in the day) - but the other extreme left much to be desired.

The only limitation direct to disk really has is limited amount of time that can be put on the disk (depending on dynamic range/bass, it can be max approx 20 min per side - usually less ). Hence, in real world, that could well mean a single movement of a symphony per side - necessitating double the number of records compared to normally ( either analog tape or digital master ) recorded records. That, and by necessity limited amount of copies that can be made of any direct to disk recording, inevitably drives the cost of such releases up - to a level most consumers are no longer capable or willing to pay for.

 

[GearMe]

I remember reading an article in one of the hifi magazines at the time by Lincoln Mayorga and Doug Sax admitting that their previous article with the infamous stair step diagram was wrong. They opened up a CD line shortly after. They master their CDs from the tape backups they ran during the original direct to disc sessions. They only use needle drop masters when no tape master exists. They completely backtracked. The records sound great though.

Yep!...the Record sounded great; the Musicians -- not so much!

thinking mostly of the Lincoln Mayorga stuff but other ones come to mind as well -- Thelma Houston...UGH!

 

[analogsurviver]

I know it. It's the same kind of repulsion and anger I get when arguing with people who believe the Earth is flat or that vaccinations are bad. I can't help myself at times.

Earth is not flat.

But, at least some, vaccinations HAVE been proven to be bad. Ask somebody who formed a company and called it after his d**k - why he and his foundation has been recently kicked out of India. Or what "his" vaccine has actually been for - a couple of years ago in certain parts of Africa.

Those are the cases when I really get mad and repulsive !!!

 

[analogsurviver]

Oops, somebody spewing bull**** pseudoscience, without ever getting a degree in engineering or even having a remote understanding of physics (or even a provable connection to reality).

Something both you and Keith fail to understand is that disc read errors manifest as clicks and pops, not as frequency domain amplitude shifts or flowery, abstract concepts such as "clarity" or "smearing". Time domain shifts from jitter in recording to disc are the definition of immaterial. First, the data is pushed into essentially a shift register 16 bits at a time before the DAC is able to convert it, so minor bit-to-bit jitter literally doesn't matter as the data is being reclocked at 44.1 kHz at output.

I'll say it again, I'll bet every penny I make for the rest of my life that a CD in a functioning CD player will output the same data with or without the mat.

Something you fail to understand is the fact that NOTHING is understood in full extent. And things do start slipping downhill before, as in CD case, there is an audible click or skipping. You are either working with the best equipment ever made - or so poor a system that can not reveal anything but the most basic information.

You would have died pennyless.